Davenport v. Keith et al

Filing 131

ORDER denying 57 Motion to Disqualify Counsel and denying 58 Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 10/30/2014. (Tripp, S.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION No. 2:14-CV-36-D JONATHAN EDMOND DAVENPORT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) PASQUOTANK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTY SAM KEITH, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) On August 1, 2014, Jonathan Edmond Davenport ("plaintiff' or "Davenport") filed a motion to disqualify Ronald G. Baker, Sr. ("Baker"), who is counsel for defendant Billy Roughton. See [D.E. 57]. Davenport also filed a memorandum in support. See [D.E. 59]. On August 11, 2014, Roughton responded in opposition. See [D.E. 67]. Davenport's motion to disqualify Baker relates to an ongoing disciplinary proceeding that the North Carolina State Bar is pursuing against Davenport's counsel, David Sutton. See [D.E. 59] 2-10; [D.E. 67] 2-5. Sutton's disciplinary proceeding involves numerous alleged violations of the Ru1es of Professional Conduct in numerous cases. See [D.E. 59-1] 1-17. Roughton's counsel, Baker, is the immediate Past President ofthe North Carolina State Bar. The North Carolina State Bar is the organization responsible for attorney disciplinary matters involving attorneys licensed to practice law inNorth Carolina. On May 9, 2014, Roughton testified as a witness at a hearing in front of the State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission concerning some of Sutton's conduct that is at issue in Sutton's disciplinary case. See [D.E. 59-2] 1-37. Baker has no conflict of interest with Davenport. See [D .E. 67]. Furthermore, Baker has no control over or input into the ongoing disciplinary proceeding involving Sutton. See id.; see also Sutton v. State Bar ofN.C., No. 5:14-CV-243-BR, 2014 WL 4546017 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 12, 2014) (unpublished).' The motion to disqualify Baker as Roughton's counsel lacks merit and is denied. On August 1, 2014, Davenport filed a motion for preliminary injunction [D.E. 58]. Davenport has not met his burden of proving entitlement to such extraordinary relief. See, ~, Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery Cnty., 722 F.3d 184, 188 (4th Cir. 2013) (en bane); Real Truth About Obama. Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1089, reissued in relevant part, 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). In sum, the court DENIES Davenport's motion to disqualify [D.E. 57] and DENIES Davenport's motion for a preliminary injunction [D.E. 58]. SO ORDERED. This _3_0day of October 2014. iSc.DEVERID Chief United States District Judge 1 Although Sutton's disciplinary case remains pending, he apparently had a disciplinary hearing last week. See North Carolina State Bar, Upcoming Disciplinazy Hearing Information, http://www.ncbar.com/discipline/DHCview.asp?DHCpkey=396 (last visited Oct. 30, 2014). The North Carolina State Bar website contains additional information about Sutton's disciplinary case. See id. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?